Translation theories Introduction

Objectives: To understand what is ‘equivalence’. To know how to study ‘translation theories’. To distinguish between translation as a ‘process’ and translation as a ‘product’. Figure out different types of equivalence proposed by different scholars. Be familiar with the names of some scholars. Objectives:

Questions Do we need to be familiar with translation theories in order to translate? How would you study translation theories? What are the main areas? What is equivalence? What is translation as a product? What is translation as a process? Have ever heard of these names Nida, Catford, Jakobson, Newmark,, House, Venuti, Bell, Gutt and Farghal?

To drive a car, for instance, does not require you to understand how the engine of the car works, but when you have basic knowledge of such mechanism, you will definitely drive your car with self-confidence, free from worry and fear. The same holds true for translation theories. In order to translate, you do not need to have a good knowledge of translation theories, but when you have it, you will translate with self-confidence, free from worry and fear.

When theorizing, when developing your own translation theory, first identify a problem – a situation of doubt requiring action, or a question in need of an answer. Then go in search of ideas that can help you work on that problem. There is no need to start in any one paradigm, and certainly no need to belong to one. Pym (2010: 166)

The competent translator is not expected to restrict him/herself to one translation orientation and/or paradigm, but rather travel among them in search of informed solutions to problems. Farghal & Almanna (2015:14)

How to study Translation theories! Historical background Translation product = equivalence-based theories Translation process = micro level Vs. macro level A- Micro level = different approaches B- Macro level Pre-translation = macro factors / global strategies Translation = procedures/steps + local strategies Post-translation = revising, proofreading, editing, translation quality control …. Macro factors

What’s equivalence?! Equivalence, by dictionary definition, is “something that has the same value, importance, size, or meaning as something else” (Cambridge Learner‟s Dictionary 2001: 238). Equal + value = equivalence Here, one would not hesitate to conclude that the two things are not identical, but rather similar. Such a conclusion is in line with Bassnett (1980/1991/2002) and House (1977/1981/1997). Bassnett (2002: 36) is of a view that equivalence “should not be approached as a search for sameness, since sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of the same text, let alone between the SL and the TL versions”. In a similar vein, House (1997: 26) comments that equivalence should not be envisaged as “virtually the same thing” since, linguistically speaking, it would be naïve to think of equivalence as a complete identity.

Reviewing a considerable number of arguments on translation equivalence, and its nature, types, possibility of achievement in the TL, among others, one would find out that scholars when introducing their views lay stress on certain aspects (cf. Abdul-Roaf 2001; Farghal 2009). Some scholars pay extra attention to cultural (Casagrande 1954; Larson 1984; House 2000), situational or sociolinguistic (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/1995), dynamic (Nida 1964; Popovic 1970), formal (Catford 1965), semiotic equivalence (Jäger 1975), while others stress communicative (Lefevere 1975; Neubert and Shreve 1992; Newmark 1988), textual (Van Dijk 1972; Beaugrande de 1980; Beaugrande de and Dressler 1981), functional (Kuepper 1977; de Waard and Nida 1986; Bell 1993; Neubert 1994), ideational (Farghal 1994), stylistic (Al-Najjar 1984; Ghazala 1996; Almanna 2013d), and/or pragmatic equivalence (Baker 1992; Emery 2002; Bayar 2007).

Farghal’s classification Farghal (1994, 2009, 2012) argues that all the above-mentioned views concerning equivalence can be boiled down to a trichotomy, namely 'formal equivalence', 'functional equivalence' and 'ideational equivalence' (2009: 7, 2011: 7-8, 2012: 45-48).

Formal equivalent simply means that the translators for any reason will focus on the image conjured by in their minds, thus trying their hands at reflecting the same image in the TL, i.e. the form is given full consideration by the translators. Ideational equivalent refers to that type of equivalent in which the translator tries to do his best to reflect the ideas expressed by the original author, regardless of the images, i.e. the ideas are given full consideration by the translator. Functional equivalent means that the translators try to use their utmost effort to find an equivalent in the TL that can reflect the function achieved by the ST expression, i.e. the function of the ST expression is given full consideration by the translator.

Optimal (full) equivalent At times, the interfacing languages conceptualize the world experience linguistically in a similar way, giving rise to 'optimal equivalence' in which both formal and functional equivalents coincide (see Baker 1992: 72; Farghal 2012: 47), as in: e.g. Birds of a feather flock together. إنّ الطيور على أشكالها تقع. e.g. Necessity is the mother of invention. الحاجة أم الاختراع e.g. The end justifies the means. الغاية تبرر الوسيلة. Try to find more examples.

Jakobson’s (1959) classification Roman Jakobson (1959/1992: 145) in his essay ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’ argues that there are three types of translation: Intralingual translation or rewording: It is “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language”, i.e. replacing certain lexical items, expressions or phrases by means of other lexical items, expressions or phrases of the same language, as in replacing the lexical item ‘purchase’ with ‘buy’. Interlingual translation or translation proper: It is “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language”, i.e. translating certain lexical items, expressions or phrases from one language into another. For example, when the lexical item ‘purchase’ is translated into يشتري, it is then an example of interlingual translation. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation: It is “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign system”, i.e. it is an interpretation activity from a non-linguistic communication system to a linguistic one. For instance, when you see ‘the red light’ while driving, and you stop, it is an intersemiotic translation.

Equivalence-based theories Nida’s (1964) Formal Equivalence Vs Dynamic Equivalence Catford’s (1965) Formal Correspondent Vs Textual Equivalent House’s (1977) Overt Translation Vs Covert Translation Newmark’s (1981) Semantic Translation Vs Communicative Translation Gutt’s (1991) Direct Translation Vs Indirect Translation Venuti’s (1995) Foreignization Vs Domestication Text-/author-oriented ... reader-oriented accurate (strong) ... acceptable (week)

The end … Thanks a lot